DOCSLIB.ORG

Residual Effects of Lead and Zinc Mining on Freshwater Mussels in the Spring River Basin

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Residual Effects of Lead and Zinc Mining on Freshwater Mussels in the Spring River Basin RESIDUAL EFFECTS OF LEAD AND ZINC MINING ON FRESHWATER MUSSELS IN THE SPRING RIVER BASIN presented by: Robert T. Angelo Kansas Department of Health and Environment Bureau of Environmental Field Services Technical Services Section STUDY OBJECTIVES ¾ Examine occurrence and distribution of native freshwater mussels in Spring River Basin. ¾ Evaluate current mussel densities, dominant taxa, and principal age-classes in selected stream reaches. ¾ Ascertain metal contaminant levels in mussel soft tissues and shell materials, focusing primarily on cadmium, lead, and zinc. ¾ Explore relationships between mussel community parameters, shell/soft tissue contaminant levels, and environmental (sediment/water-column) contaminant concentrations. SPRING RIVER BASIN (WITH MAJOR STREAMS, HISTORICAL LEAD AND ZINC MINING AREAS, AND MUSSEL SURVEY LOCATIONS) x xt t KS MO 0 20 40 0 20 40 OK km Spring River, sta. 1 Spring River, sta. 2 Spring River, sta. 4 Spring River, sta. 6 MUSSEL SPECIES OBSERVED IN SPRING RIVER 1. Alasmidonta marginata 18. Potamilus ohiensis 2. Amblema plicata 19. Potamilus purpuratus 3. Cyprogenia aberti 20. Ptychobranchus occidentalis 4. Elliptio dilatata 21. Pyganodon grandis 5. Fusconaia flava 22. Quadrula cylindrica 6. Fusconaia ozarkensis 23. Quadrula metanevra 7. Lampsilis cardium 24. Quadrula pustulosa 8. Lampsilis rafinesqueana 25. Quadrula quadrula 9. Lampsilis siliquoidea 26. Strophitus undulatus 10. Lampsilis teres 27. Tritogonia verrucosa 11. Lasmigona complanata 28. Truncilla donaciformis 12. Lasmigona costata 29. Venustaconcha ellipsiformis 13. Leptodea fragilis 14. Ligumia recta Species listed as endangered, threatened, or in need of 15. Ligumia subrostrata conservation by KDWP 16. Obliquaria reflexa Species represented only by 17. Pleurobema sintoxia weathered shell material MUSSEL SPECIES RICHNESS DOCUMENTED AT NINE SURVEY SITES ALONG SPRING RIVER 25 = Number of mussel taxa represented by live animals or recent shell material = Number of mussel taxa 20 = Number of mussel taxa represented by weathered or relict shell material only 15 10 Number of species Number of species 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Upstream stations Downstream stations Cow Creek North Fork Spring River Brush Creek Shoal Creek, sta. 3 MUSSEL SPECIES OBSERVED IN MAJOR TRIBUTARIES OF SPRING RIVER 1. Amblema plicata 15. Potamilus purpuratus 2. Elliptio dilatata 16. Pyganodon grandis 3. Fusconaia flava 17. Quadrula pustulosa 4. Fusconaia ozarkensis 18. Quadrula quadrula 5. Lampsilis cardium 19. Strophitus undulatus 6. Lampsilis rafinesqueana 20. Toxolasma lividis 7. Lampsilis siliquoidea 21. Toxolasma parvus 8. Lampsilis teres 22. Tritogonia verrucosa 9. Lasmigona complanata 23. Venustaconcha ellipsiformis 10. Lasmigona costata 11. Leptodea fragilis Species listed as endangered, threatened, or in need of 12. Ligumia subrostrata conservation by KDWP 13. Pleurobema sintoxia Species not found in Spring 14. Potamilus ohiensis River MUSSEL SPECIES RICHNESS DOCUMENTED AT 13 SITES ON MAJOR TRIBUTARIES OF SPRING RIVER 16 = Mussel taxa represented by live mussels or recent shell material = Mussel taxa represented 12 by weathered or relict shell material only 8 Number of species Number of species 4 0 NF Spring Shawnee Willow Shoal 2 Short Center 1 Center 3 Cow Brush Shoal 1 Shoal 3 Turkey Center 2 Spring River, sta. 3 RELATIVE ABUNDANCE OF MUSSEL TAXA ENCOUNTERED DURING QUANTITATIVE SURVEY OF SPRING RIVER, STATION 3 L. rafinesqueana T. verrucosa Q. pustulosa E. dilatata F. flava L. fragilis P. occidentalis P. sintoxia Q. metanevra S. undulatus Total mussel count = 153 V. ellipsiformis Excavated meter2 quadrats = 98 Unidentified juveniles 0 5 10 15 20 Percentage of total mussel count ABUNDANCE AND DISTRIBUTION OF NATIVE UNIONID MUSSELS IN SPRING RIVER, STATION 3 Upper margin of surveyed stream reach 12 ) ) 2 2 10 8 6 s ters me 200 4 Mussel density Mussel density (live animals per meter (live animals per meter 2 Mean = 1.6 mussels/meter2 0 50 meters Median = 1.0 mussel/meter2 Spring River, sta. 5 MUSSEL TAXA AND NUMBERS ENCOUNTERED DURING QUANTITATIVE SURVEY OF SPRING RIVER, STATION 5 L. fragilis L. cardium L. rafinesqueana L. subrostrata Q. pustulosa Total mussel count = 9 Excavated meter2 quadrats = 50 T. verrucosa 0 1 2 3 Mussel count ABUNDANCE AND DISTRIBUTION OF NATIVE UNIONID MUSSELS IN SPRING RIVER, STATION 5 Upper margin of surveyed stream reach 1 ) ) 2 2 s ters me 100 Mussel density Mussel density (live animals per meter (live animals per meter Mean = 0.2 mussel per meter2 0 18 meters Median = 0.0 mussel per meter2 CADMIUM CONCENTRATIONS IN SOFT TISSUES OF ALL BIVALVES COLLECTED FROM SPRING RIVER 20 18 16 14 Empire Lake Empire Lake 12 Turkey Creek Turkey Creek Center Creek 10 Center Creek Cow Creek 8 Cow Creek (mg/kg, dry wt.) (mg/kg, dry wt.) North Fork Spring River 6 North Fork Spring River 4 Bivalve cadmium concentration Bivalve cadmium concentration 2 0 Station #: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Upstream Downstream LEAD CONCENTRATIONS IN SOFT TISSUES OF ALL BIVALVES COLLECTED FROM SPRING RIVER 20 18 16 14 Empire Lake Empire Lake 12 Turkey Creek Turkey Creek Center Creek 10 Center Creek Cow Creek 8 Cow Creek (mg/kg, dry wt.) (mg/kg, dry wt.) 6 North Fork Spring River North Fork Spring River Bivalve lead concentration Bivalve lead concentration 4 2 0 Station #: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Upstream Downstream ZINC CONCENTRATIONS IN SOFT TISSUES OF ALL BIVALVES COLLECTED FROM SPRING RIVER 8000 7000 6000 Empire Lake 5000 Empire Lake Turkey Creek Turkey Creek Center Creek Center Creek 4000 Cow Creek Cow Creek 3000 (mg/kg, dry wt.) (mg/kg, dry wt.) North Fork Spring River North Fork Spring River Bivalve zinc concentration 2000 Bivalve zinc concentration 1000 0 Station #: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Upstream Downstream & % Pistolgrip mussel, Tritogonia verrucosa CADMIUM CONCENTRATIONS IN SOFT TISSUES OF PISTOLGRIP MUSSEL, TRITOGONIA VERRUCOSA 12 12 n = 1 Kruskal-Wallis (sites with replicate samples): 1010 H = 22.88, p < 0.001 88 n = 4 66 44 (mg/kg, dry wt.) (mg/kg, dry wt.) Cadmium concentration Cadmium concentration 22 n = 15 n = 15 n = 10 00 Cow Creek Sta. 2 Sta. 3 Sta. 4 Sta. 5 Spring River LEAD CONCENTRATIONS IN SOFT TISSUES OF PISTOLGRIP MUSSEL, TRITOGONIA VERRUCOSA 88 Kruskal-Wallis (sites n = 1 with replicate samples): 77 n = 4 H = 19.18, p < 0.001 66 55 44 33 (mg/kg, dry wt.) (mg/kg, dry wt.) Lead concentration Lead concentration 22 n = 15 n = 15 n = 10 11 00 Cow Creek Sta. 2 Sta. 3 Sta. 4 Sta. 5 Spring River ZINC CONCENTRATIONS IN SOFT TISSUES OF PISTOLGRIP MUSSEL, TRITOGONIA VERRUCOSA 80008000 Kruskal-Wallis (sites with replicate samples): n = 4 70007000 H = 19.95, p < 0.001 60006000 50005000 40004000 30003000 n = 1 (mg/kg, dry wt.) (mg/kg, dry wt.) Zinc concentration Zinc concentration 20002000 10001000 n = 15 n = 15 n = 10 00 Cow Creek Sta. 2 Sta. 3 Sta. 4 Sta. 5 Spring River Neosho mucket, Lampsilis rafinesqueana & % CADMIUM CONCENTRATIONS IN SOFT TISSUES OF NEOSHO MUCKET, LAMPSILIS RAFINESQUEANA 10 10 n = 1 88 66 n = 5 44 (mg/kg, dry wt.) (mg/kg, dry wt.) n = 5 Cadmium concentration Cadmium concentration 22 00 Sta. 3 Sta. 4 Sta. 5 Spring River LEAD CONCENTRATIONS IN SOFT TISSUES OF NEOSHO MUCKET, LAMPSILIS RAFINESQUEANA 6 6 n = 1 55 n = 5 44 33 22 (mg/kg, dry wt.) (mg/kg, dry wt.) Lead concentration Lead concentration n = 5 11 00 Sta. 3 Sta. 4 Sta. 5 Spring River ZINC CONCENTRATIONS IN SOFT TISSUES OF NEOSHO MUCKET, LAMPSILIS RAFINESQUEANA 35003500 n = 5 30003000 25002500 n = 1 20002000 15001500 (mg/kg, dry wt.) (mg/kg, dry wt.) 10001000 Zinc concentration Zinc concentration n = 5 500500 00 Sta. 3 Sta. 4 Sta. 5 Spring River Asian clam, Corbicula fluminea COMPARISON OF ZINC CONCENTRATIONS IN SOFT TISSUES OF FRESHWATER MUSSELS VERSUS ASIAN CLAM (LOG MEAN CONCENTRATIONS, NINE SITES) 3.6 log y = 1.44 log x – 1.02 R2 = 0.96 3.2 2.8 2.4 (log mg/kg, dry wt.) (log mg/kg, dry wt.) Mussel zinc concentration Mussel zinc concentration 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 Clam zinc concentration (log mg/kg, dry wt.) LEAD CONCENTRATIONS IN SOFT TISSUES OF ASIAN CLAM, CORBICULA FLUMINEA (COMPOSITE CLAM SAMPLES) 2525 Kruskal-Wallis: n = 3 H = 7.32, p = 0.026 2020 1515 n = 3 1010 (mg/kg, dry wt.) (mg/kg, dry wt.) Lead concentration Lead concentration 55 n = 3 00 Sta. 1 Sta. 2 Sta. 3 Shoal Creek MUSSEL SPECIES RICHNESS VERSUS SEDIMENT LEAD LEVEL AT SIX SPRING RIVER SAMPLING LOCATIONS 30 120 Species number Sediment Pb conc. (mg/kg, drywt.,<250 (mg/kg, drywt.,<250 Sediment leadconc. Sediment leadconc. 20 80 10 40 : : Number of species Number of species m) m) 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Station number MUSSEL SPECIES RICHNESS VERSUS SEDIMENT LEAD LEVEL AT TEN PERENNIAL TRIBUTARY LOCATIONS 16 1.8 Species number (grams/kg, drywt.,<250 Sediment Pb conc. (grams/kg, drywt.,<250 Sediment leadconc. 12 Sediment leadconc. 1.2 8 0.6 Number of species Number of species : 4 : m) m) 0 0 NF Spring Shoal 1 Shoal 3 Turkey Center 2 Cow Shoal 2 Short Center 1 Center 3 COMPARISON OF LEAD CONCENTRATIONS IN SOFT TISSUES OF NATIVE MUSSELS VERSUS FLUVIAL SEDIMENT (LOG MEAN CONCENTRATIONS, TEN SITES) 1.2 log y = 1.27 log x – 1.67 R2 = 0.81 0.8 0.4 (log mg/kg, dry wt.) (log mg/kg, dry wt.) 0 Mussel lead concentration Mussel lead concentration -0.4 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 Sediment lead concentration (log mg/kg, < 250-:m fraction) COMPARISON OF LEAD CONCENTRATIONS IN SOFT TISSUES OF ASIAN CLAM VERSUS FLUVIAL SEDIMENT (LOG MEAN CONCENTRATIONS, 13 SITES) 1.5 log y = 1.12 log x – 1.19 R2 = 0.80 1.2 0.9 0.6 0.3 (log mg/kg, dry wt.) (log mg/kg, dry wt.) Clam lead concentration Clam lead concentration 0 -0.3 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 Sediment lead concentration (log mg/kg, < 250-:m fraction) WATER-COLUMN ZINC CONCENTRATIONS MEASURED DURING LOW FLOW AND HIGH FLOW SYNOPTIC SURVEYS 800 265 cfs, 10,900 cfs, 700 Spring River, Spring River, Quapaw, Okla.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Species Biological Report Neosho Mucket (Lampsilis Rafinesqueana)
    Species Biological Report Neosho Mucket (Lampsilis rafinesqueana) Cover photo: Dr. Chris Barnhart (Missouri State University) Prepared by: The Neosho Mucket Recovery Team This species biological report informs the Draft Recovery Plan for the Neosho Mucket (Lampsilis rafinesqueana) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2017). The Species Biological Report is a comprehensive biological status review by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) for the Neosho Mucket and provides an account of species overall viability. A Recovery Implementation Strategy, which provides the expanded narrative for the recovery activities and the implementation schedule, is available at https://www.fws.gov/arkansas-es/. The Recovery Implementation Strategy and Species Biological Report are finalized separately from the Recovery Plan and will be updated on a routine basis. Executive Summary The Neosho Mucket is a freshwater mussel endemic to the Illinois, Neosho, and Verdigris River basins in Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma. It is associated with shallow riffles and runs comprising gravel substrate and moderate to swift currents, but prefers near-shore areas or areas out of the main current in Shoal Creek and Illinois River. It does not occur in reservoirs lacking riverine characteristics. The life-history traits and habitat requirements of the Neosho Mucket make it extremely susceptible to environmental change (e.g., droughts, sedimentation, chemical contaminants). Mechanisms leading to the decline of Neosho Mucket range from local (e.g., riparian clearing, chemical contaminants, etc.), to regional influences (e.g., altered flow regimes, channelization, etc.), to global climate change. The synergistic (interaction of two or more components) effects of threats are often complex in aquatic environments, making it difficult to predict changes in mussel and fish host(s) distribution, abundance, and habitat availability that may result from these effects.
    [Show full text]
  • Recovery Implementation Strategy Neosho Mucket (Lampsilis
    Recovery Implementation Strategy Neosho Mucket (Lampsilis rafinesqueana) Courtesy of Dr. Chris Barnhart (Missouri State University) Prepared by: The Neosho Mucket Recovery Team This Recovery Implementation Strategy describes the activities to implement the recovery actions identified in the Draft Recovery Plan for the Neosho Mucket (Lampsilis rafinesqueana) (Service 2017). The strategy provides a narrative and the implementation schedule for the Neosho Mucket recovery activities. The implementation schedule estimates the cost for implementing recovery activities for removal from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (delisting). Additionally, the strategy document restates the criteria for determining when the Neosho Mucket should be considered for delisting. A Species Biological Report, which provides information on the species’ biology and status and a brief discussion of factors limiting its populations, is available at http://www.fws.gov/arkansas-es. The Recovery Implementation Strategy and Species Biological Report are finalized separately from the Recovery Plan and will be updated on a routine basis. Recovery Strategy The primary strategy for recovery of Neosho Mucket is to conserve the range of genetic and morphological diversity of the species across its historical range; fully quantify population demographics and status within each river; improve population size and viability within each river; reduce threats adversely affecting the species within each river (e.g., habitat degradation from sedimentation, chemical contaminants, channel destabilization, water diversion); emphasize voluntary soil and water stewardship practices by citizens living and working within each watershed; and potentially use captive propagation to prevent local extirpation where recruitment failure is occurring and for reintroduction within rivers historically occupied by Neosho Mucket.
    [Show full text]
  • Fish Hosts and Culture of Mussel Species of Special Concern: Annual Report for 1999
    Fish Hosts and Culture of Mussel Species of Special Concern: Annual Report for 1999 Date prepared: February 28, 2000 Submitted to: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Missouri Ecological Services Field Office 608 East Cherry Street Columbia, MO 65201 and Natural History Section Missouri Department of Conservation P.O. Box 180 Jefferson City, MO 65102 Submitted by: M. Christopher Barnhart and Michael S. Baird Department of Biology Southwest Missouri State University 901 S. National Springfield, Missouri 65804 Telephone: 417-836-5166 FAX: 417-836-6934 E-mail: [email protected] 2 SUMMARY This report describes results of the second year of a 3-year investigation of reproductive biology of freshwater mussels (unionoids). At least 21 North American unionoids are already extinct and 69 species are federally classified as endangered (Williams et al. 1993, Neves et al. 1997). The purpose of this project is to provide information that will facilitate conservation and management of these unique organisms. Parasitism of larval unionoids on fish is a central feature of their biology. Knowledge of the host fish and the requirements of the juvenile life stages are prerequisite for propagation and restoration of endangered species. Therefore, we are attempting to identify fish hosts and key reproductive behaviors and to investigate the biology of cultured juveniles. During the past year we investigated hosts of four mussel species. Laboratory host tests with spectaclecase (Cumberlandia monodonta) on 26 potential host species were all negative. Examination of natural infestations of glochidia on fish revealed a few Cumberlandia glochidia on bigeye chub (Notropis amblops) and a single glochidium on shorthead redhorse (Moxostoma macrolepidotum).
    [Show full text]
  • Status Survey of the Western Fanshell and the Neosho Mucket in Oklahoma
    1990 c.3 OKLAHOMA <) PROJECT TITLE: STATUS SURVEY OF THE WESTERN FANSHELL AND THE NEOSHO MUCKET IN OKLAHOMA To determine the distribution and abundance of the freshwater mussels Cyprogenia aberti (Conrad) and Lampsilis rafinesqueana Frierson in Oklahoma. A survey to determine the status of the freshwater mussels, Cyprogenia aberti (Conrad) and Lampsilis rafinesqueana Frierson, in Oklahoma was completed during August and September, 1989. These species are also known by the common names of Western Fanshell and Neosho Mucket, respectively. The western fanshell is probably extinct in the state. It is known that the species formerly occurred in the Verdigris River in Oklahoma and as a result of this study, was determined that it had also existed in the Caney River. However, no evidence of living or fresh specimens was found in any river system in northeastern Oklahoma. The Neosho mucket has also disappeared from most of its former range within the state and presently only occurs in a segment of the Illinois River system extending from the Lake Frances dam near the Arkansas border to Lake Tenkiller. Protection for this species is recommended. This report describes efforts to determine the status of two species of freshwater mussels (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Unionidae) in Oklahoma. Both species are generally considered to be rare and have rather limited geographical distributions. Both species may meet the criteria of endangered species and thus it was considered important to gain some information as to their current status. Both species have been recorded in Oklahoma but their current abundance and distribution in the state were unknown. The western fanshell, Cyprogenia aberti (Conrad) was described in 1850 from specimens collected on the rapids of the Verdigris River, Chambers' Ford, Oklahoma (Johnson, 1980).
    [Show full text]
  • Distribution and Status of Rare and Endangered Mussels (Mollusca: Margaritiferidae, Unionidae) in Arkansas John L
    Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science Volume 41 Article 15 1987 Distribution and Status of Rare and Endangered Mussels (Mollusca: Margaritiferidae, Unionidae) in Arkansas John L. Harris Arkansas Highway & Transportation Department, [email protected] Mark E. Gordon Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas Part of the Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology Commons Recommended Citation Harris, John L. and Gordon, Mark E. (1987) "Distribution and Status of Rare and Endangered Mussels (Mollusca: Margaritiferidae, Unionidae) in Arkansas," Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science: Vol. 41 , Article 15. Available at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol41/iss1/15 This article is available for use under the Creative Commons license: Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-ND 4.0). Users are able to read, download, copy, print, distribute, search, link to the full texts of these articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UARK. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks@UARK. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 41 [1987], Art. 15 DISTRIBUTION AND STATUS OF RARE AND ENDANGERED MUSSELS (MOLLUSCA: MARGARITIFERIDAE, UNIONIDAE) IN ARKANSAS JOHN L. HARRIS Environmental Division Arkansas Highway & Transportation Department P.O. Box 2261 Little Rock, AR 72203 MARKE. GORDON 304 North Willow, Apt. A Fayetteville, AR 72701 ABSTRACT Knowledge of the distribution and population status of freshwater bivalves occurring in Arkansas has increased markedly during the past decade.
    [Show full text]
  • Volume 21 Number 1 April 2018
    FRESHWATER MOLLUSK BIOLOGY AND CONSERVATION THE JOURNAL OF THE FRESHWATER MOLLUSK CONSERVATION SOCIETY VOLUME 21 NUMBER 1 APRIL 2018 Pages 1-18 Pages 19-27 Freshwater Mussels (Bivalvia: Unionida) A Survey of the Freshwater Mussels of Vietnam: Diversity, Distribution, and (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Unionida) of the Conservation Status Niangua River Basin, Missouri Van Tu Do, Le Quang Tuan, and Stephen E. McMurray, Joshua T. Arthur E. Boga Hundley, and J. Scott Faiman Freshwater Mollusk Biology and Conservation 21:1–18, 2018 Ó Freshwater Mollusk Conservation Society 2018 REGULAR ARTICLE FRESHWATER MUSSELS (BIVALVIA: UNIONIDA) OF VIETNAM: DIVERSITY, DISTRIBUTION, AND CONSERVATION STATUS Van Tu Do1, Le Quang Tuan1, and Arthur E. Bogan2* 1 Institute of Ecology and Biological Resources (IEBR), Vietnam Academy of Science and Technology, 18 Hoang Quoc Viet, Nghia Do, Cau Giay, Ha Noi, Vietnam, [email protected]; [email protected] 2 North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences, 11 West Jones Street, Raleigh, NC 27601 USA ABSTRACT Vietnam has the second highest diversity of freshwater mussels (Unionida) in Asia after China. The purpose of this paper is to compile an up-to-date list of the modern unionid fauna of Vietnam and its current conservation status. Unfortunately, there has been relatively little research on this fauna in Vietnam. Fifty-nine species of Unionida have been recorded from Vietnam based on literature, museum records, and our fieldwork. Fifty were assessed in the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List 2016 in the IUCN categories of Critically Endangered (four species, 6.8%), Endangered (seven species, 12%), Vulnerable (one species, 1.7%), Near Threatened (two species, 3.4%), Least Concern (23 species, 39%), Data Deficient (11 species, 18.6%), and Not Evaluated (11 species, 18.6%).
    [Show full text]
  • Comments of Association of Arkansas Counties on Fws
    COMMENTS OF ASSOCIATION OF ARKANSAS COUNTIES ON FWS PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF CRITICAL HABITAT FOR THE NEOSHO MUCKET AND RABBITSFOOT MUSSEL (50 C.F.R. Part 17) Published at: FWS-R4-ES-2012-0031 FWS-R4-ES-2013-0007 RIN 1018-AZ30 78 Fed. Reg. 52894 (August 27, 2013) Submitted on: October 28, 2013 To: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Division of Policy and Directives Management 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS 2042-PDM Arlington, VA 22203 Via: http://www.regulations.gov Docket ID No. FWS-R4-ES-2013-0007 COMMENTS ON PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF CRITICAL HABITAT FOR THE NEOSHO MUCKET AND RABBITSFOOT MUSSEL (50 C.F.R. Part 17) I. Executive Summary A. Introduction On October 16, 2012, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (the “Service”) published a proposed rule1 listing the Neosho mucket (Lampsilis rafinesqueana) and rabbitsfoot (Quadrula cylindrical cylindrical) mussels (the “target species”) as endangered and threatened, respectively, and designating critical habitats for both under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended.2 On September 17, 2013, the Service published its final rule3 listing the Neosho mucket and rabbitsfoot mussels as endangered and threatened, respectively, but did not make a final determination on designation of critical habitat units for the target species. On August 27, 2013, the Service published a notice4 that it was reopening the public comment period on the proposed designation of critical habitat units for the Neosho mucket and rabbitsfoot mussels. The Service’s proposed rule specifically requested, inter alia, comments
    [Show full text]
  • Final Critical Habitat Designation
    24692 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 83 / Thursday, April 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR arkansas-es/, at http:// Fish and Wildlife Service, Mississippi www.regulations.gov at Docket No. Ecological Services Field Office, 6578 Fish and Wildlife Service FWS–R4–ES–2013–0007, and at the Dogwood View Parkway, Suite A, Arkansas Ecological Services Field Jackson, MS 39123; telephone 601–965– 50 CFR Part 17 Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 4900; facsimile 601–965–4340. [Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2013–0007; CONTACT). Any additional tools or For information about the final 4500030114] supporting information we developed designation in Missouri, contact Amy for this critical habitat designation will Salveter, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish RIN 1018–AZ30 also be available at the U.S. Fish and and Wildlife Service, Columbia Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Wildlife Service Web site and Field Ecological Services Field Office, 101 and Plants; Designation of Critical Office outlined above, and also may be Park DeVille Drive, Suite A, Columbia, Habitat for Neosho Mucket and included in the preamble, at http:// MO 65203–0057; telephone 573–234– Rabbitsfoot www.regulations.gov, or both. 2132; facsimile 573–234–2181. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For For information about the final AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, general information about this rule, and designation in Ohio, contact Dan Interior. information about the final designation Everson, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and ACTION: Final rule. in Arkansas, contact Melvin Tobin, Wildlife Service, 4625 Morse Road, Acting Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Suite 104, Columbus, OH 43230; SUMMARY: We, the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Review of Native Species That Are Candidates for Listing As Endangered Or
    Vol. 76 Wednesday, No. 207 October 26, 2011 Part II Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of Native Species That Are Candidates for Listing as Endangered or Threatened; Annual Notice of Findings on Resubmitted Petitions; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions; Proposed Rule VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:54 Oct 25, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM 26OCP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 66370 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR period October 1, 2010, through Species-specific information and September 30, 2011. materials we receive will be available Fish and Wildlife Service We request additional status for public inspection by appointment, information that may be available for during normal business hours, at the 50 CFR Part 17 the 244 candidate species identified in appropriate Regional Office listed below this CNOR. [Docket No. FWS–R9–ES–2011–0061; MO– under Request for Information in 9221050083–B2] DATES: We will accept information on SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. General any of the species in this Candidate information we receive will be available Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Notice of Review at any time. at the Office of Communications and and Plants; Review of Native Species ADDRESSES: This notice is available on Candidate Conservation, Arlington, VA That Are Candidates for Listing as the Internet at http:// (see address under FOR FURTHER Endangered or Threatened; Annual www.regulations.gov and http:// INFORMATION CONTACT). Notice of Findings on Resubmitted www.fws.gov/endangered/what-e-do/ Candidate Notice of Review Petitions; Annual Description of cnor.html.
    [Show full text]
  • Mollusca of the Illinois River, Arkansas M
    Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science Volume 33 Article 14 1979 Mollusca of the Illinois River, Arkansas M. E. Gordon University of Arkansas, Fayetteville Arthur V. Brown University of Arkansas, Fayetteville L. Russert Kraemer University of Arkansas, Fayetteville Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas Part of the Population Biology Commons Recommended Citation Gordon, M. E.; Brown, Arthur V.; and Kraemer, L. Russert (1979) "Mollusca of the Illinois River, Arkansas," Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science: Vol. 33 , Article 14. Available at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol33/iss1/14 This article is available for use under the Creative Commons license: Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-ND 4.0). Users are able to read, download, copy, print, distribute, search, link to the full texts of these articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UARK. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks@UARK. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 33 [1979], Art. 14 Mollusca of the IllinoisRiver, Arkansas M.E. GORDON, A.V. BROWN and L. RUSSERT KRAEMER Department of Zoology University of Arkansas Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701 ABSTRACT The Illinois River is in the Ozark region of northwestern Arkansas and eastern Oklahoma. A survey of the Illinois River in Arkansas produced nine species and one morphological sub- species of gastropods, three species of sphaeriid clams, and 23 species of unionid mussels.
    [Show full text]
  • Neosho Mucket and Rabbitsfoot Mussels
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service April 2015 Neosho Mucket and Rabbitsfoot Mussels No other country in the world Freshwater Mussel Facts Common and scientific names: equals the United States in Neosho mucket (Lampsilis rafinesqueana) freshwater mussel variety. The Rabbitsfoot U.S. has nearly 300 mussel (Quadrula cylindrica cylindrica) Status: The Neosho mucket and rabbitsfoot species, while Europe has were federally listed under the Endangered only 12 species. The Southeast Species Act on September 17, 2013. The Neosho mucket is endangered and the is especially rich in aquatic rabbitsfoot is threatened. Both mussel biodiversity. species have been lost from more than 60 percent of their historical ranges. Unfortunately, our mussels are in trouble. It’s estimated that 70 percent of U.S. freshwater Description: Mussels are bivalve mollusks, mussels are extinct, endangered, or in need which means they have two valves (shells) of special protection. Many of their problems surrounding a soft fleshy body. Freshwater stem from how they live and the changes that mussels are related to snails, oysters, clams have occurred to their river habitats. and squids. Neosho mucket uses a minnow Why are freshwater mussels so imperiled? Habitat: Rabbitsfoot mussels prefer shallow lure to attract a host fish (bass) for Our native freshwater mussels face greater areas with sand and gravel along the bank its larvae, credit Chris Barnhart/ problems today than they did just a few years and next to shoals, which provide a refuge Missouri State University. ago. Mussels are primarily threatened from in fast-moving rivers. They are found in 13 changes to their habitat.
    [Show full text]
  • Section 8. Appendices
    Section 8. Appendices Appendix 1.1 — Acronyms Terminology AWAP – Arkansas Wildlife Action Plan BMP – Best Management Practice CWCS — Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy EO — Element Occurrence GIS — Geographic Information Systems SGCN — Species of Greatest Conservation Need LIP — Landowner Incentive Program MOA — Memorandum of Agreement ACWCS — Arkansas Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy SWG — State Wildlife Grant LTA — Land Type Association WNS — White-nose Syndrome Organizations ADEQ — Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality AGFC — Arkansas Game and Fish Commission AHTD — Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department ANHC — Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission ASU — Arkansas State University ATU — Arkansas Technical University FWS — Fish and Wildlife Service HSU — Henderson State University NRCS — Natural Resources Conservation Service SAU — Southern Arkansas University TNC — The Nature Conservancy UA — University of Arkansas (Fayetteville) UA/Ft. Smith — University of Arkansas at Fort Smith UALR — University of Arkansas at Little Rock UAM — University of Arkansas at Monticello UCA — University of Central Arkansas USFS — United States Forest Service 1581 Appendix 2.1. List of Species of Greatest Conservation Need by Priority Score. List of species of greatest conservation need ranked by Species Priority Score. A higher score implies a greater need for conservation concern and actions. Priority Common Name Scientific Name Taxa Association Score 100 Curtis Pearlymussel Epioblasma florentina curtisii Mussel 100
    [Show full text]